Re: Layoffs for Tax Avoidance

Anything you subsidize, you get more of; anything you tax, you get less of.

(Babies, mortgages, jobs, ethanol, tobacco, etc.)

Cheers, James Arthur

So why can't we get less tobacco?

Well, except for one minor problem: All the Mexicans are already HERE! This means that either all the employees here have to move to Mexico for cheap living and low wages or you simply fire all the current employees and hire "immigrants" to do the work. Former employees can move to Mexico to compete with Mexicans for the few dog- work jobs that have already moved there. Happy trails.

No. I meant sending the production across the border to a contract assembly house. The issue isn't whether my employees are hiapanic or Chinese or Portugese or Italian or Irish or n-sexual - I have all that already - but whether I elect to pay the FICA, unemployment, workman's comp, health insurance, city payroll tax, gourmet coffee and Cokes and Pelligrino, bonuses, 401K, and periodic barbeque costs, or whether to send if offshore where I'd just pay very cheap labor with no overhead or obligations.

Of the huge overhead costs, the ones mandated by government are the worst, so are the prime job-killers. If the money to pay for this social engineering were derived from sales taxes, and not from domestic employers, the offshore assemblers would have less advantage.

But I suppose those Chinese and Mexicans need jobs at home, too. So adding disencentives to domestic employmen - exporting jobs - is a form of foreign aid. Of course, it makes the rich richer even as it kills the working-class jobs. Washington apparently wants it that way.

John

We subsidize it.

Cheers, James Arthur

You're supposed to believe the political demagogy that U.S. workers are the "most productive in the world" and hence what the Mexicans can do in 150 man-years of employment only takes us 50 man-years. :-)

It's dead simple to accomplish that - just don't buy it!

But antismokerists are too dumb to see that, and they deny Free Will; they're addicted to controlling everybody, as are all religious cults.

Thanks, Rich

Perxactly. What a crazy split brained thing to do to both subsidize and tax it.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...>

Not crazy at all, if the point is to increase revenue. Sometimes you gotta invest a little. The Trial Lawyers Association likes the situation too (likely reason #1).

In article , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...>

Fact.

Since they haven't done "it", your statement makes no sense. ...but you knew that.

We turned over the asylum keys to the lunatics a long time ago.

Thanks, Rich

of.

Is the item having both at least 1 specific subsidy and at least 1 specific specialized tax tobacco or a tobacco/nicotine product?

Can I say: "Con" is supposed to be the opposite of "Pro". What is according to this the opposite of "Progress"?

Oh, and what is the job approval rating of the members of US Congress? A lower double digit number whose first digit lately this year has usually been 2 and maybe sometimes 1? But what percentage of US Congress is incumbents being successful at re-election - a 2-digit number whose first digit is 7 or 8? If that one is so low as sub-75% I would jump up and out to the street dancing with joy!!!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

of.

Maybe, maybe not. I dare you to really look into "farm subsidies" closely.

I love learning. Teach me something.

My, that was remarkably non-contributory. What plan do you have for restoring order?

of.

Congress taxes food?

Not possible.

less of.

Only because you have nothing to teach.

less of.

I didn't say it was impossible for *me* to teach you anything, Dumbass.

of.

Everyone, no matter how humble, has something to teach us.

Cheers, James Arthur

less of.

Which doesn't negate my point.